About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
anyone outside the fbi or justice department until last week because the investigation was incomplete and there were initial concerns about possible security breaches. host: another story from "the washington post" this morning. the headline, "probe of the petraeus investigation." we want to take you to one of those lawmakers now, congressman peter king, he was on "state of the union" this week, expressing concerns over when the fbi, the white house, and members of congress knew about the investigation. [video clip] >> i have questions about the whole matter. how to the fbi have been investigating it for this long? and if the general was involved, to me, if it was, the fbi director had the obligation to tell the head of the council at the earliest date. seems to have been going on for several months, but now it seems the fbi did not realize it until election day? it just does not add up, you have this kind of investigation, the fbi investigating e-mails, taking four months to find out that the cia director was involved? i have real questions about this. the time line has to be analyze
to the pentagon and the i.g. on the one hand and to the f.b.i. with regards to general petraeus. >> he's not -- big picture watching, he's not shaking his head saying, guys, we need a more credible, competent sense of leadership? >> he's not going to make grand pronouncements or decisions about things based on two situations, two individual cases. he's focused on the missions that the military is tasked with carrying out and the c.i.a. and the general intelligence community is tasked with carrying out and with enacting his overall agenda. which encompasses not just national security policy but obviously domestic polcy. -- policy. yes. >> jay, has the president spoken to general allen directly? >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> secretary panetta? >> i'd have to check that. secretary panetta has been traveling. >> as sort after follow-up, does the president see this in general as an unwelcomed distraction at a time when he's just -- was re-elected and has a bunch of priorities in terms of the fiscal cliff and his cabinet? >> i certainly i think wouldn't call it welcome. obviously the -- a
of interests when the f.b.i. is investigating information that involves the director of the c.i.a., when you have an attorney general that has information that needs to go immediately to the commander-in-chief, to the president of the country, we need to find out, did it go there, and if not, why not. and if so, and what is the president doing with this information because now he's saying he didn't get it until after the election. why so long? what are the problems here? why are the stories different? why are the stores told different from the evidence those people had in hair thands when -- hands when they told those stories the answers need to be found and there's clearly a conflict of interest. we do not need to return to the days of an f.b.i. director who investigates not to report to the commander in chief but to gather information so that he can get it and use it or provide toyota someone else who can use it to force people do what they want. so what happens when f.b.i. director who comes into office honorably with the best of intentions as it appears j. edgar hoover did, to battle org
was on "state of the union" this week, expressing concerns over when the fbi, the white house, and members of congress knew about the investigation. [video clip] >> i have questions about the whole matter. how to the fbi have been investigating it for this long? and if the general was involved, to me, if it was, the fbi director had the obligation to tell the head of the council at the earliest date. seems to have been going on for several months, but now it seems the fbi did not realize it until election day? it just does not add up, you have this kind of investigation, the fbi investigating emails, taking four months to find out that the cia director was involved? i have real questions about this. the time line has to be analyzed to see what happened. >> it looks like general petraeus will not be testifying this week at the hearings that we talked about on the september 11 incident in benghazi. here is the headline -- "lawmakers have questions." host: we are getting your fallout this morning from all the papers. this from christine -- host: like i said, we are getting your thoughts this
have a standing army of armed bureaucrats and the t.s.a., c.i.a., f.b.i., fish and wildlife, corps of engineers, etc.,p citizens are protch guilty until proven innocent in the constitutional administrative corgets. government in a free society should have no authority to meddle into social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. all things peaceful, even when controversial should be permitted. we must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just as we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. but even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech, a very dangerous trend. since 9/11, monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required. the proliferation of federal crimes. the constitution established four federal crimes. today the experts can't even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books. they number into the thousands. no one person request comprehend the enormity
not share outside the justice department, outside the f.b.i. the facts of ongoing investigations. we made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security. had we made the determination that a threat to national security existed, we would, of course, had made that known to the president and also to the appropriate members on the hill. but as we went through the investigation, looked at the facts and tried to examine them as they developed, we were very -- we felt e very secure in the knowledge that a national security threat did not exist that warranted the sharing of that information with the white house or the hill. but when we got to a point in the investigation and it was very late in the investigation after a very critical interview occurred on the friday before we made that disclosure, when we got to that point when we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so. >> thank you. >> attorney genre rick holder speaking to report ners washington. another news conference coming up this afternoon. we'll tell you about
serious situation. there's a lot of concern about the fact that the f.b.i. didn't come back for three weeks. the reason is when they had to go back they needed protection. they needed to make sure that their lives were not at risk again. and we had to rely in the beginning with a very unorganized government and security group who was working with us and that was the libyans themselves. >> can you explain rice's comments five days later? why that was still the line of spontaneous -- >> we talked some about susan rice. susan rice got a lot of the same information that we did. i'll make a comparison to colin powell. when colin powell went before the united nations, getting information from the administration on the facts. >> you said that within 24 hours -- [inaudible] this was five days later. >> i said they knew right away that there were terrorists involved in the operation. >> why wasn't that part -- >> wait, are you finished? what? give it to me. >> in other words, if he knew within 24 hours it was terrorist-related, how come five days later in the talking points for susan rice it s
with the president. >> my question is for leader cantor. i wanted to ask you about the f.b.i. tipster that came forward to you about general petraeus, what did he tell you and do you have any questions about his credibility given he sent a shirtless picture? >> all i'm going to say, i received information from an individual that i had not met before and did not know the information that was sent to me sounded as if there was a potential for a national security vulnerability. i had no way of corroborating the story that i was told and felt the best thing to do at the time was not to politicize it but to put national security first and that's why i turned to director mueller's office to ask them to do their job and assume that the f.b.i. would comply with its obligations to keep us on the hill informed once it was determined whether an investigation was necessary or a crime had been committed. >> just a comment -- [inaudible] >> senator mccain wants a wear gate sort of probe into this matter, would you get behind these types of -- >> i think the standing committees of the house, the oversight com
about the fbi and the cia. back to our topic, avoiding the fiscal cliff, do you cut entitlement spending? and become a port richey, florida. -- andy, democratic caller, port richey, florida. excuse me, let me move on to nick. caller: every time they talk about these in congress, they will not cut their pay, not cut their staff, will not cut any federal employees, which is exactly what all that money is. immigration, those people are costing the american taxpayers' dollars. host: you say that that is exactly where it is going, the number that folks put out there and that experts are saying is that that is not where it is all at, that that would get you very far. but that the real drivers are these entitlement programs. host: i have a friend who works on c130's. they had an $800 garbage can and they were not allowed to ask if they could take a cut in military pay, because it was disrespectful. that is how congress treats the american people. actually, they work for us, so they should start to cut their pay, their staffs. think about that. explain to me why they should make more than the av
judgment on the f.b.i. he also talked about issues like the fiscal cliff. here's the front page of the arizona republic. we get this courtesy of the new see yum. obama jumps back into the d.c. fray. patrick, rockville, maryland, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. what i have to say is projecting weakness and disorganization as a whole to the public will not help this country. people need to basically try to fix the country, in my opinion. and if something like benghazi happened, we should be able to find out what happened privately and take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. that's all i have to say. host: gale joins us now from wisconsin on our republican line. hi. caller: hi, there. how are you this morning? host: where are you in wisconsin? caller: milwaukee area. i just wanted to make a comment that i certainly don't have any confidence in the security team. the reason i don't have confidence is if you're going to go out in front of public and just be a puppet and say everything that you're told to say, not speak the truth to the people like this ad
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)